Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states that it lists capabilities; it doesn't mention whether it performs network calls, has rate limits, or returns static data. It also doesn't explain what 'compatible entry points' means in terms of behavior. This is a significant gap for a discovery tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, just one sentence, with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('list') and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity is moderate (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't describe the return format, the nature of 'capabilities', or the query parameter's use. An agent would need more context to know what information to provide or what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter 'query' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description doesn't explain what 'query' does or what format it should take. The description only says 'list', which doesn't imply a search. The tool name and description suggest discovery, but without explaining the query parameter, an agent cannot use it effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear purpose: listing Bursia public capabilities and compatible entry points. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Bursia public capabilities'), which is sufficiently clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource is unique enough that an agent can infer its role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or relationships to siblings. An agent would have to guess when discovery is appropriate, especially compared to tools like capability_triage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.